About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
you've had some tough things to say about congressman peter king, for example. his comments about the pledge. but look specifically to his point. some things do change over the years, the economic problems, for example, that we may have had 20 years ago, 40 years ago, they're different than the economic problems right now. so don't different problems call for different solutions? >> well, what was odd about peter king's comment was look, tax increases slow economic growth. tax increases take resources out of the real economy and allow the government to grow and grow. that's always a bad idea. that's not a good idea some years and a bad idea others. leeches, doctors don't put leeches on people ever, it's wrong. don't do it. it doesn't make people stronger. raising taxes, taking money out of the economy, damages the economy, kills jobs, reduces opportunities. >> you know, the latest cnn polls that just came out this week say you're wrong. two or three americans, including a majority of republicans, say the fiscal cliff should be addressed with a mix, a mix of spending cuts, yes, but
and bob corker in the senate and peter king in the house, they haven't said overall now we changed our tune, we're in favor of raising taxes, what they said is okay, maybe we will budge on tax increases of some form in exchange for some cuts to entitlements and things like that. so that's clearly a major difference in their stance. there is going to be a lot of tough negotiating that goes on here. no question about it. but the thing that has changed is the republicans are beginning to signal they will accept tax increases as part of some kind of deal to solve this fiscal cliff problem and start dealing with the $16 trillion debt. >> so you brought up some of the names. where do you seat republican party right now? are they beginning to line up behind the bob corkers and the saxby chambliss and lindsey graham willing to talk about new taxes on the wealthy, or is the party still, like, say, rand paul, i talked to him a short time ago. take a listen. >> -- willing to raise taxes when we're still spending $300,000 a year on robotic squirrels to watch rattlesnakes attack a robotic squirrel
have been cracking this door a little bit. peter king said over the weekend for instance if i was in congress in 1941 with refrpbl reference to the pledge you made i would have signed a war against japan. i'm not going to attack japan today. the world has changed and the economic situation is different. that from peter kin. about is make it clear, what raising revenues and not tax rates. just on the surface, why do you believe that the door is starting to crack a little bit? why are republicans talking this way? >> two things, the people who are saying that they might vote for a tax increase that bush got talked into in 1990 for return for make believe spending cuts are the same people who said this two years ago, this is a complete media-created frenzy. peter king said this two years ago, lindsey graham said this two years ago. chamblis of georgia said this two years ago. they said all these things all during the negotiations where they tried to undermine where john boehner and mitch mcconnell got 2.5 trillion in spending cuts without a dollar than tax increase and those peop
and said i don't know who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. that's what peter king told us when he came on our show among other, and mike rogers attested to that. and then a couple days later his office came out and said, it was us. we were the ones who changed the talking points to take out al-qaeda. and then mike romers said -- mike rogers, mr. clapper, can you explain why you just told us it wasn't you and you had no idea who did it? so that's why i asked if she gave you a name of who briefed her. >> no. we have not been getting a name, but i would say, megyn, that i still think that there needs to be more sufficient answers as to what agency changed the talking points and who did that, and those are some of the questions we have answers -- we expect answers to. and also why they did that. it's absurd to me to think that you would omit the reference of al-qaeda. so we didn't want to tip al-qaeda off? and particularly since it's very important that the american people not be left a misleading impression which is what happened here. and not only did it happen, if the intel
, saxby chambliss lindsey graham, peter king, bob corker is the other one who said we're not bound by this. we don't feel we're bound by this pledge anymore. chuck schumer yesterday dan indicating that this -- he sees this as a good sign. >> republicans in both the house and senate are deciding they no longer want to be married to this pledge. republicans are saying they want a divorce from grover norquist. that alone is a leading indicator that the fiscal deal is within reach. both sides are still far apart. the discussions over the next few weeks will be difficult but with each new republican disavowing grover norquist, the chances of a deal rises sharply. >> bill: daniella, is grover over? >> oh, please, lord, let it be true! you know, i think so. there was a funny thing politico arena they ask these questions every day. one of the questions a couple of days ago was is grover norquist's reign over. the first person who responded was grover norquist. no. republicans are -- blah, blah, blah. >> bill: he says his
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)